If you’re interested in the interplay between science and theology,
you might want to come to this (free) public lecture:
“The Language of God” – February 20, 2007 – Loeb Playhouse – 8:00 p.m.
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
Director, National Human Genome Research Institute At the National Institutes of Health and Member of the National Academy of Science
Did anyone else go to this? What’d you think? I, for one, was pretty disappointed. After about 20 minutes, he finally declared the name of Jesus Christ and that he was indeed a committed devotee of Christ. Prior to that, he spoke often of being a believer in God, but, “…even the demons believe–and shudder” (James 2:19).
I thought things were getting on the right track, but he then proceeded with a pretty pathetic attempt to avoid offending anyone by saying that all religions are beautiful ways of finding the truth and that all of us need to find our own truth in our own way. Gag me! If that’s not postmodern rhetoric, I don’t know what is.
Shortly after this, he moved into a diatribe about how the Big Bang and the evolution of the species is pretty much scientific fact now, and that any Christians who deny these things in the face of “overwhelming” scientific evidence are inconsistent. He dispelled his other alternative, that God created the universe in the rather recent past but made it look old, by saying that if that were the case, God would be the “Great Deceiver.” I’m certainly glad that he has the corner market on how the Sovereign of all creation chooses to create and reveal Himself in nature.
So, basically, I thought he had some good points and many bad ones. He at least opened some people’s eyes, I think, to the fact that science and faith are not mutually exclusive, even if he got a lot of the science dead wrong in my book.
By: Matt Borg on February 21, 2007
at 9:10 am
I agree with Matt. It seemed like he was looking down apon any Christian that has a more literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2. It was interesting to see the outspoken athiests in the crowd bob their heads in agreement to this (which may be a good thing that softens their hearts). Personally, I think there are a lot of sketchy things with the theory of evolution…so I cannot say I can support his views.
Anyways, I was disappointed with his whole talk in general. I thought he would simply reconcile the concept of God and science, but it seemed all he did was promote evolution. There are several methods to reconcile this, but it seems you have to already have some presuppositions to form the basis of your argument (evolutionism, creationism, etc.). You have to be objective and try out all starting points to see which accumulates the strongest evidence. I wonder if he ever did this, for he did not seem very objective in his tone.
By: Nick Watkins on February 21, 2007
at 1:20 pm
First, I think talks like this are invaluable for those people whose starting-point is out at the point where they’ve never considered that it was even possible for an intelligent person or scientist to consider believing in God. For that audience, I hope this talk was a challenge and a push towards looking at evidence for God and Christ. I found it odd that the speaker talked as if he invented the concept of theistic evolution. But of course, he is selling a book.
However, I disagreed with much that was fundamental to the worldview presented.
1) I do not believe the dichotomy that says Science asks “How?” and Faith asks “Why?”
This is an oversimplification and leads to a dualistic view (so common in theistic evolution) that will rip the individual apart as he attempts to serve two masters. (e.g. do you believe in naturalism or in the possibility of miracles? I think that’s a how question, not a why)
2) I did not agree with the speaker’s definition of intelligent design. Of course, it follows then that his critique didn’t get too far with me. At its core, intelligent design seems to be a mathematical theory of information and how it functions. See http://www.designinference.com/ for some info.
3) I felt the speaker made little of Jesus. As was already mentioned, statements like everyone needs to “find truth in their own way” mean about zero to me. In general the view pushed was a mediocre middle ground – where all religions are welcome, all believers in scientificism are more than welcome, and whatever we do, lets avoid the shrill extremes (because if there is one value all Americans can agree on it, its how dangerous “extremes” can be).
4) I get extremely annoyed by the “I’m a scientist – I won’t believe it until you show me the data – until you prove it to me – I need empirical evidence before I’ll accept anything as true” crowd. First, I’m exteremely annoyed as a mathematician. Total proof never comes from empirical observation. It gives you theories not theorems. I don’t care if the sun came up 8 billion days in a row, you cannot PROVE that it will happen again tomorrow. So lets cut out the arrogance you scientists have in thinking you have 100% certainty about anything. Second, I’m exteremly annoyed as a human being. I believe and do things everyday without empirical proof. So does every other person on earth. Scientificists are horribly hypocritical.
Consequently, lets admit that scientificism (belief in the scientific method, rationality, logical deduction) is a religion (an epistemology actually). And lets admit that we really have no good reason for believing in it without some kind of deeper foundation. (Otherwise the premise of our worldview is inconsistent with itself as Plantinga taught us). See http://grts.cornerstone.edu/wittmer/bonus_chapter1.pdf
Can macro-evolution and God cohabitate? Romans 1:18-20 warns us of the tendency to replace God with the creation. Specifically, God’s attributes of eternal power and divine nature. It seems that some are quick to ascribe eternal power (i.e. billions of years with astronomical amounts of energy) and divine nature (a mysterious and powerful wisdom known as natural selection) to the creation itself. Dangerous ground, in my opinion.
By: philmummert on February 22, 2007
at 9:47 am
I wish I’d had the opportunity to see this presentation. I’m always leery when a Christian seems intent on cozying up with naturalistic scientists. How much is an honest struggle with the data? How much is simply the fear of man? It’s not our place to know and judge the purposes of other people’s hearts (1 Cor 4:5). But it seems like some Christians fasten on to the latest scientific theory (which inevitably will be replaced by something newer and better) more strongly than they cling to the unchanging Word of God. There are many theistic evolutionists who believe God directed the process of evolution but stop short of believing that man evolved from a common ancestor with the apes. I’m not sure you can have it both ways–I know the naturalists won’t put up with anything less than 100% compliance with their presuppositions.
Probably the most important thing we can do as Christians is show a concern for truth and critical thinking while demonstrating the love of Jesus Christ. That’ll catch anyone’s attention.
By: Dave Nannery on February 23, 2007
at 10:33 am